6 views

Uploaded by Guilherme Ayres

Artical

- Formulas for the Skin Effect
- 500W Royer induction heater.pdf
- 3000 Problemas de Circuitos
- 1basic Electricals Engg. [15ele15]-Notes
- sem1_2-_basic-electrical_engineering_unit_1_2_3_4_5_6_7_8.pdf
- The Transmission and Reception of Telluric Waves - N6KPH - Collected Posts
- An-1095 International Rectifier Lc Filters
- EMI
- Chapter17 Electromagnetic Induction Bnw
- Smith wilbur
- Basic Electrical Engineering
- Rogowski_Coil_02.pdf
- INDUCTOR.ppt
- charger
- Combined R&Fr V7
- chapter5-a.ppt
- Proportional Actuator from On Off Solenoid Valve.pdf
- Paper 3
- Power Lines Filters for SPS
- AIEEE-2004paper with solutions

You are on page 1of 16

Mark William Kennedy1, Shahid Akhtar1, Jon Arne Bakken1, Ragnhild E. Aune1,2

1

Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and

Technology, N-7491 Trondheim,

NORWAY

2

Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology, 100 44

Stockholm,

SWEDEN

Communicating author: ragnhild.aune@ntnu.no

Abstract

In the present study classical induction design tools are applied to the problem of heating non-

magnetic metal billets, using 50 Hz AC. As an example of great practical industrial interest, the

induction heating of aluminum billets is addressed specifically. The predicted work piece power

is compared with the measured work piece power for a long and a short coil, using well

established methods, such as those of Burch and Davis, introduced in 1926/28, Dwight and

Bagai in 1935, Baker in 1944/57, Vaughan and Williamson in 1945, and by Tudbury in 1960. A

calculation methodology based on a combination of the available tools is also introduced and

discussed. The method has proven to give an error of <10% of the actual work piece power. An

equation for Tudbury's work piece shortness correction factor is disclosed for the first time.

Introduction

Induction heating of metal billets is a practical problem, with a geometry suitable for solution

using analytical methods. This paper will examine solutions related specifically to round work

pieces in round coils, although the methods presented can be extended to other regular shapes of

work pieces and coils[1]. The methods can also be extended to ferromagnetic materials with

slight changes[2-3]. It is assumed that the coil and work piece have a consistent diameter over

their entire length and that the work piece is at least as long as the coil. Correction factors can be

derived for the cases where the work piece is shorter than the coil.

The study of induction heating by coils began in the late 19th century with theoreticians like

Heaviside[4]. The work of Burch and Davis[5-7] in the 1920’s greatly improved the theoretical

understanding of induction applied to metallurgy. Many investigators in the 1930’s-1950’s:

Dwight and Bagai[8], Baker[1-2, 9], Vaughan and Williamson[3, 10] and others[11-12] added to

our understanding with clearer mathematics, solutions for specific applications, semi-empirical

modifications and practical design tools. Much of the accumulated knowledge is available in

books, such as Tudbury’s practical text or Simpson’s engineering guide from 1960[13-14].

Perhaps the best description and derivation of the theoretical and semi-empirical solutions can be

found in Davies[15].

In coreless induction heating, a work piece is placed within an induction coil as shown in Figure

1. Both the work piece and coil can be of arbitrary shape and length. A cyclically varying

voltage is impressed upon the coil, which creates a time varying current in the coil and a strong

magnetic field along the axis. This varying magnetic field interacts with the work piece to

induce circular voltage gradients and “eddy currents,” which circulate around the axis of the coil,

but in a direction opposite the coil’s current, as shown in Figure 1. The circulation of the eddy

currents, J (A/m2) and the work piece’s natural resistivity, ρ (ohm·m), combine to generate heat,

P (W/m3). The relationship between the coil current, the magnetic field strength, the induced

voltages and currents, is complex and will be discussed in some detail. Due to the relative

simplicity we will begin by discussing an empty or “air core” coil.

Figure 1. 10 turn induction coil, with billet slightly longer than coil

Let us begin by considering the coil shown in Figure 1. It has a length (lc) that can be measured

in two ways: taking the centre-centre distance on the sides of the leads or top-bottom of the coil

turns opposite the leads (as shown in Figure 1).

Imagine that the coil was constructed from a solid copper tube of length (lc). Let the thickness of

the copper (tc) be very small in comparison with the diameter of the cylinder (Dc). (Nc-1)

grooves of thickness (sc) are cut in a helical spiral along the whole length. This forms a long coil

or solenoid, with a geometry approaching that of a theoretical “current sheet” with Nc turns as

shown in Figure 2.

pc = dc + sc (1)

The coil space factor is the fraction of the side of the coil occupied by copper:

Figure 2. 10 turn helical “current sheet” coil or solenoid

The length of the “wire” in the coil, at the average current depth is:

dc = lc kr / Nc (4)

penetration depth (δc) of much less than the thickness of the conductor in the radial dimension,

(δc<<tc). Where the penetration depth is defined as the depth, which if filled with a

homogeneous current (DC current) would yield the same resistance as the AC current

distribution over the whole thickness of the conductor. At high frequency, current in a solenoid

is biased towards the surface of the wire facing the interior of the coil and attenuates in an

exponential manner with each penetration depth into the conductor.

The penetration depth can be calculated from the following commonly accepted formula[16-17]:

Where: μo is the magnetic permeability of free space, (4 π 10-7 H/m) and μr is the relative

permeability for copper and aluminum, which is equal to 1.

ω = 2 π f (radians per second) (6)

A modified penetration depth can be calculated accounting for the presence of the air gaps as

derived by Howe[18] and with demonstrated accuracy according to the data of Vaughan and

Williamson [10], using the kr factor from Equation (2):

The alternating current resistance of the coil can then be found using the simple formula:

Where the effective area of the current path for alternating current is:

acurrent = dc δc = δc lc kr / Nc (9)

The resistivity of the copper is a function of temperature and composition as shown in Figure 3.

Phosphorous deoxidized copper (with up to 0.04 wt% residual P) will have an actual

conductivity of about 80% IACS (International Annealed Copper Standard of 1913[19]). 100%

IACS is equivalent to a resistivity of 1.7241E-8 ohm·m at 20oC, with copper having a

temperature coefficient of 0.00393[19-21].

We can now estimate using equations (1-10) the AC resistance of the coil to be:

Rc = π (Dc + δc) Nc ρc / (δc lc / Nc) = π (Dc + δc) Nc2 ρc / (δc lc kr) (11)

Power lost from the coil to the cooling water can then be calculated from P=Ic2Rc, where Ic is the

root mean square (R.M.S.) value:

If the electromagnetic penetration depth exceeds more than half the actual conductor thickness,

as might occur at low frequency (tc>δc>0.5tc), some small error will be encountered with

equations (11-12). If the penetration depth is significantly greater than the thickness (δc>tc), the

resistance can be accurately estimated using the total conducting area (equivalent to the DC

resistance in this case) in Equation (8). Care must be taken to account for the loss of conducting

area due to the cooling channel. In other cases, either an “exact” theoretical solution[18, 22-28]

or empirical data[29] must be used. There is a tendency for the “exact” solutions to be in error

for very short coils (lc/Dc<1), or coils with large spaces between the turns (kr<0.7). It is best if

the coil can be designed such that (δc<0.5tc), for low resistive losses and accurate design.

Figure 4. Examples of conductor shapes for mains frequencies (50-60 Hz), medium (500-5000

Hz), and high frequency furnaces, each with the recommended wall thickness of 2δ[30]

It is standard practice in induction furnace coil design to assume that the coil is magnetically

thick (δc<0.5tc). It is then assumed that the wire of the coil has an internal reactance equal to the

resistance, which is the same as saying that the wire has an internal power factor of 0.707:

X c = Rc (13)

This is a dubious assumption except for very high ratios of thickness to penetration depth

(δc<0.25tc), but causes little error in the total estimation of reactive power. Errors are smallest at

high frequency with thin conductors as shown in Figure 4.

Magnetic Field, Inductance and Impedance for Short and Long “Air Core” Coils

If we imagine that our coil is merely a section of length lc of an infinitely long coil, the magnetic

flux density within the coil is independent of position in the coil. The magnetic flux density can

then be estimated using either Amperè’s or the Biot-Savart law to be:

B∞ = μo Nc Ic / lc (14)

This assumes negligible flux density outside of the coil (no reluctance in the external magnetic

circuit), ignores end effects (there are no ends to an infinite coil) and assumes complete linking

of all the flux with all the turns of the coil.

The inductance of the empty long coil (“air core” inductor) is then determined from the number

of flux linkages per unit current:

L∞ = Ac μo N2c / lc = Ac Nc B∞ / Ic (15)

Ac = π (Dc+δc)2 / 4 (16)

For round tubes or if δc≥ tc, the diameter at the centre line of the conductor should be used.

Induction furnace coils are nearly always “short coils”, lc/(Dc+δc)<8, and are often very short

lc/(Dc+δc)<1. There are fundamental differences between long and short coils. In the case of

short coils, the assumptions of uniform internal and negligible external flux density are no longer

correct. The short coil flux density is now a function of both length and radius [Bshort(l, rc)] and

there now exists an external magnetic flux density near the coil, with a finite reluctance. The

approximation that all the flux, links all the turns is also questionable.

In the case of short “air core” coils, exact solutions have been calculated for the “end effect” of a

“current sheet” and a correction factor (kN) tabulated by Nagaoka[31-32]. The short coil

inductance can then be calculated by:

L0 = kN Ac μo N2c / lc = kN Ac Nc B∞ / Ic (17)

Equation (17) is the equivalent to saying that the actual flux density (integrated by length and

radius) of the short coil in the axial direction is:

B0 = kN B∞ = kN μo H∞ = kN μo Nc Ic / lc (18)

The Nagaoka factor has been plotted in Figure 5. Alternatively, an empirical equation like that

of Wheeler[33], can be used to estimate coil inductance for a short coil. Wheeler’s equation has

been reformulated by Knight[34] to give the Nagaoka coefficient directly:

0.9

0.8

0.7

2

kNagaoka , kNagaoka

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

D c /l c

kNagaoka kNagaoka^2

If round tubing is used, it is necessary to apply a round wire correction such as Rosa’s[32] to the

calculated inductance.

Once the inductance of the short coil has been obtained, it is then simple to estimate the

inductive reactance (X0), the total coil impedance (Z0) and voltage drop (V0) for the “air core”

coil:

X0 = ω L0 = 2 π f L0 (21)

V0 = I0 Z0 (23)

In the presence of a work piece, we can see from Figure 1, that the total magnetic flux can be

divided into 3 parts: flux which links only with the coil (Φc), flux in the air gap (Φg) and the net

flux that links the billet (Φw). These fluxes in turn produce equivalent inductances and reactive

impedances: Xc, Xg and Xw’, as indicated in the simplified series circuit diagram, Figure 6.

Several things happen to the magnetic field when a work piece is placed into the coil:

1. The “aperture” of the coil is effectively reduced, making the effective diameter to length

ratio look smaller, changing the magnitude of the short coil correction factor kN and the

flux density in the air gap along the axial direction of the coil.

2. Space that was formerly air is occupied by the work piece, reducing the total air gap flux.

3. Eddy currents in the billet produce magnetic fields, which oppose the magnetic field of

the coil, reducing the net flux in the space occupied by the billet.

Vaughan and Williamson proposed an empirical modification to the short coil correction factor

based on the volumetric fraction of the air-gap occupied by the work piece. Their proposed

correction factor is applied to the Nagaoka coefficient to produce an “effective Nagaoka

coefficient” for a short coil containing a work piece:

The effective magnetic flux density in the air gap of a short coil containing a work piece can then

be calculated by:

It is assumed that this magnetic flux density is constant over the width of the air gap, and that it

is this flux density, which induces the eddy currents in the work piece.

The contribution of the air gap to the total inductive impedance of the circuit is:

Derivation of Work Piece Impedance and Power Formulae

It is difficult to make electrical measurement in the work piece. The effect of the work piece on

the circuit is normally inferred from electrical changes in the coil, with and without a work piece.

As a first approximation it can be assumed that the resistance and reactance of the coil are not

affected by the work piece and all measured electrical changes can be attributed to the work

piece and changed air gap.

One approach to the mathematics is to consider the magnetic and electrical circuits to be a series

circuit as shown in Figure 6, for a “long coil”. The picture is similar, but more complex for a

“short coil” if the reluctance of the external magnetic circuit is to be accounted for explicitly[1].

resistance and reactance referred to the

coil. See Equations (39-40).

Figure 6. Series equivalent circuit for an induction furnace coil and work piece

When alternating current is applied, the coil and work piece become inductively coupled in a

similar way to the windings of a transformer over the length shared by the coil and work piece.

The magnetic flux density produced in the air gap by the coil, is the same flux density, which

induces eddy currents at the surface of the work piece:

If lw ≥ lc take lw = lc, i.e. it is assumed that only the length of work piece within the coil interacts

with the magnetic field of the coil. In the following derivations we take lw ≥ lc and substitute lc in

the place of lw.

The eddy currents induced in the billet are assumed to make a single turn (Nw=1), while the

current in the coil makes Nc turns. It is standard practice to refer conditions in the work piece

back to the coil (where we measure the voltage, current, resistance and impedance of the total

circuit) via the standard transformer relationship:

By analogy to Equation (11), with Nw=1, kr=1 (as the work piece has no “air gaps”) and the

average diameter is reduced by the penetration depth:

Where δw can be calculated using Equation (5) substituting work piece (w) for coil (c) values.

If the work piece is shorter than the coil, the calculated resistance must be corrected by

multiplying by the ratio (lw / lc).

Pw = Iw2 Rw = kN*2 (Ic Nc)2 Rw = kN*2 (IcNc)2 π (Dw - δw) ρw / (δw lc) (32)

and can be found in many different forms in various publications.

The actual resistance in the work piece can be “reflected” back onto the coil via:

and added to the coil resistance, to give the total circuit resistance as indicated in Figure 6:

Rt = Rw’ + Rc (35)

Higher mathematical precision requires the exact solution to the field equations using complex

numbers and involves use of (computationally challenging) Bessel functions[4, 6, 8]:

Rw’ = [π Nc2 Dw ρw / (δw lc)] √2 (berξw ber’ξw + beiξw bei’ξw) / [ber2(ξw) +bei2(ξw)] (36)

Rw’ = (√2 π Nc2 ρw ξw / lc) √2 (berξw ber’ξw + beiξw bei’ξw) / [ber2(ξw) +bei2(ξw)] (37)

Defining φ(ξw):

Similar solutions exist for the inductive reactance of the work piece[4, 6, 8]:

Where ψ(ξw) is defined as:

Substituting Equations (39) and (34) into Equation (32) for the power developed in the work

piece:

φ(ξw) and ψ(ξw) are plotted in Figure 7 versus ξw for use with Equations (42-43). Baker presents

the equations in slightly different format, using his functions P and Q, which are similar

solutions for the real and imaginary parts of the Bessel functions[1]. Excellent derivations of

Baker’s P and Q can be found in the literature[14-15].

and becomes close to constant for ξw>3, converging slowly towards 0.707 or √2/2, for very high

ξw.

1.2

φ(ξw), ψ(ξw), Power Factor, unitless

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

ξw, unitless

Figure 7. Resistance and Reactive factors for use with Equations (42-43).

Work Piece Shortness Correction Factor

As the length of a coil increases for a fixed diameter, the Nagaoka coefficient and the modified

coefficients kN* and kN*2 approach unity and the ratio of the coil diameter to length (Dc/lc)

approaches zero at the limit. As the diameter of the work piece is reduced with a constant coil

diameter, the coil increasingly looks like an “air core” coil, and at the limit of Dw/Dc going to

zero, kN*2 = kN2.

The modified Nagaoka coefficient squared (kN*2) of Vaughan and Williamson[10], is plotted in

Figure 8. If this figure is compared with the original graph in the book by Tudbury[13], it is

clear that they are identical and that the equation fits the logical tests given above. See Figure 5

for the comparison of kN2 with the intercepts on Figure 7 (limit of the “air core”). Tudbury’s

original book must be referenced, as later reproductions are not drawn accurately[35].

1

Modified Nagaoka Coefficient 2, kN*2

0.8 Diameter to

Length, Dc/l c

0.7

0.6

0

0.5 0.2

0.4 0.4

0.6

0.3

0.8

0.2 1

0.1

0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Figure 9. Tudbury’s Work Piece Shortness Factor and Vaughan and Williamson’s modified

Nagaoka Coefficient2[10, 13]

Results and Discussion

Experiments were conducted using a number of aluminum billets of different sizes and

compositions, using two different coils as indicated in Table I. Billet electrical conductivities

were estimated by simultaneously minimizing the error from Equation (42) and Baker’s method,

while ensuring the conductivity fell within the range of published specifications for each alloy.

Coils were constructed using thin wall tubing for convenience (as power efficiency was not an

issue), where the AC resistance was identical with the DC resistance (δc>dc>tc). This eliminated

the need to have capacitor banks and reduced the impact of harmonics on the measurements.

Copper tubing conductivity was ~80% IACS. Measurements were taken with a Fluke 43B Power

Quality Analyzer, equipped with a calibrated Fluke i1000s current probe with an accuracy of 1%.

Work pieces were cooled to below room temperature (~10oC) and then readings were taken

before they heated beyond 30oC, such that 20oC was a typical temperature to evaluate the

resistivity. Ideally the work pieces would have been drilled through, cooled with water to

achieve isothermal conditions and the heat input determined calorimetrically; however, in the

case of the magnetically thin work pieces (2 and 3) this would have created significant

measurement errors. A non-metallic water jacket would be a possible option for cooling without

influencing the electromagnetic properties of the work piece.

W ork Pieces: 1 2 3 4 5

Alloy: A356 6053 6053 6082 7108

Diameter, mm 76.8 38.6 50.5 95.3 95.4

Length, mm 192 356 1078 258 201/340

Resistivity (ohm m) at 20 C: 4.01E-08 4.11E-08 4.11E-08 3.59E-08 3.92E-08

IACS conductivity, % 43 42 42 48 44

Penetration depth (mm) at 50 Hz: 14.25 14.42 14.42 13.49 14.09

ξw: 3.810 1.893 2.476 4.996 4.788

φ(ξw): 0.819 0.397 0.638 0.852 0.846

ψ(ξw): 1.014 1.060 1.104 1.004 1.004

Coil 1 X X X X X

Coil 2 X X X

Inside diameter, mm 126 118

Average diameter, mm 132 124

Height, mm 111 300

Coil tube diameter, mm 6 6.35

Coil tube thickness, mm 1.00 0.762

Number of turns 16.5 41

"Aircore" inductance, μH 27.6 71.7

Nagaoka coefficient, Equation (20), kN: 0.653 0.843

Resistance at maximum load, ohms 0.0108 0.0319

Avg. temperature at maximum load, Deg C: 43 62

*

Modified Nagaoka coefficient for load 1, k N : 0.771

*

Modified Nagaoka coefficient for load 2, k N : 0.683

*

Modified Nagaoka coefficient for load 3, kN : 0.704 0.869

*

Modified Nagaoka coefficient for load 4, kN : 0.835 0.935

*

Modified Nagaoka coefficient for load 5, kN : 0.836 0.935

Table II. Electrical measurements, coils 1 and 2 with work pieces 1-5

Load Power

Number V A kVA kW kVAR Factor

1-1 13.14 969 12.7 10.7 7.0 0.84

1-1 14.84 1079 16.0 13.5 8.7 0.84

1-2 13.13 953 12.5 9.8 7.8 0.78

1-2 14.81 1067 15.8 12.5 9.7 0.79

1-3 13.14 954 12.5 10.0 7.6 0.79

1-3 14.81 1067 15.8 12.7 9.5 0.80

1-4 13.13 999 13.1 11.6 6.1 0.88

1-4 14.85 1110 16.5 14.6 7.6 0.89

1-5 13.13 985 13.0 11.4 6.2 0.88

1-5 14.86 1095 16.3 14.4 7.7 0.89

2-3 27.60 703 19.5 16.4 10.5 0.84

2-4 27.58 729 20.1 18.5 7.6 0.93

2-5 27.58 721 19.9 18.5 7.4 0.93

Work piece power has been determined by subtracting the coil power from the power of the

work piece and coil and attributing all resistive changes to the work piece. Where multiple

readings had been taken, averages are shown in Tables II and III. Measured coil power has been

compared to predictions using equations (32) and (42) and against various methods published in

the literature[1, 6, 8]. The methods of Vaughan and Williamson[10] and Tudbury[13], utilizing

the modified Nagaoka coefficient, will give essentially the same results as Equation (42). Short

coil methods of Baker[1] and Burch and Davis[6] and the long coil method of Dwight and

Bagai[8], are shown in Table III for comparison.

Table III. Comparison of real and calculated work piece power by various methods

Number Power, W (32) (42) Short Coil Davis Bagai

1-1 692 754 759 577 821 1275

1-1 899 936 942 716 1013 1583

1-2 138 224 142 125 271 305

1-2 177 281 178 157 340 382

1-3 325 356 318 266 517 641

1-3 377 445 398 333 647 802

1-4 990 1165 1155 862 945 1656

1-4 1264 1438 1426 1064 1167 2045

1-5 1086 1176 1168 866 962 1673

1-5 1422 1454 1443 1070 1188 2067

2-3 640 674 602 569 740 798

2-4 1553 1533 1520 1591 1402 1738

2-5 1923 1810 1797 1627 1657 2054

Error +/-~2% 16.6 6.0 14.6 33.0 67.6

It can be seen in Table III, that Equation (42) produces the best results in comparison with the

measured data, with a typical error of 6% and a maximum error of 16%. Except for work piece

number 2 with ξw<3, Equation (32) gave comparable results with those of Equation (42).

Coil 1 had a length/diameter ratio of 0.84 using the average diameter. While coil 2 had a ratio of

2.42, i.e. coil 2 was relatively long, while coil 1 was quite short. It can be seen in Table III that

the use of the modified Nagaoka coefficient gave an excellent correction for coil shortness, such

that the calculation errors are comparable for both coils using equations (32) and (42). Baker’s

method gives reasonable, but less accurate results for all work pieces and coils. Burch and

Davis’ short coil correction does not work well for small Dw/Dc (work pieces 2 and 3). Dwight

and Bagai’s long coil method is of course only suitable for the “long” coil number 2.

Please note that for coil 2, work piece 4 was shorter than the coil and that the suggested

correction factor of Baker[1] was applied to all methods, i.e. the calculated resistance of the work

piece, e.g. Equation (31), was multiplied by the ratio of the length of the work piece/length of the

coil (lw/lc). This is a direct consequence of Equation (28).

Conclusions

A method has been described using a modified Nagaoka coefficient, capable of estimating work

piece power to better than 10% accuracy, for long and short coils, including cases where the

work piece is shorter than the coil. Tudbury’s work piece shortness factor has been found to be

the square of the modified Nagaoka coefficient as proposed by Vaughan and Williamson in

1945. Given that the presence of a work piece has now been shown to change the magnetic field

inside the air gap of a short coil significantly, the assumption that the impedance of the coil does

not change due to the presence of the work piece can be questioned. It would be of value to

directly measure electrical conditions in the work piece, e.g. circular voltage gradients, in order

to separate the effect of the coil on the work piece and the work piece on the coil.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to express their gratitude to Egil Torsetnes at NTNU, Trondheim, Norway, for

helping with the design and construction of the experimental apparatus. Deepest gratitude is also

due to Kurt Sandaunet at Sintef, Trondheim, Norway, for the use of the Sintef laboratory and his

contribution in the execution of the experiments. Special thanks to Liss Pedersen at Alcoa, Lista,

Norway, for the supply of filter materials. The author would also like to acknowledge the

funding from the Norwegian Research Council through the RIRA project.

References

1. R. Baker, "Design and calculation of induction heating coils'," AIEE Trans, 57, (1957), 31-40.

2. R. Baker, "Induction Heating of Moving Magnetic Strip," American Institute of Electrical

Engineers, Transactions of the, 64, (1945), 184-189.

3. J. Vaughan and J. Williamson, "Design of Induction Heating Coils for Cylindrical Magnetic

Loads," American Institute of Electrical Engineers, Transactions of the, 65, (1946), 887-892.

4. O. Heaviside, Electrical Papers. (London: Macmillan & Co., 1892), 353-416.

5. C. Burch and N. Davis, "LXX. On the quantitative theory of induction heating," Philosophical

Magazine Series 7, 1, (1926), 768-783.

6. C. Burch and N. Davis, An introduction to the theory of eddy-current heating. (London: E.

Benn Limited, 1928).

7. C. Burch and N. Ryland Davis, "Über eisenlose Induktionsöfen," Electrical Engineering

(Archiv fur Elektrotechnik), 20, (1928), 211-223.

8. H. Dwight and M. Bagai, "Calculations for coreless induction furnaces," American Institute of

Electrical Engineers, Transactions of the, 54, (1935), 312-315.

9. R. Baker, "Heating of Nonmagnetic Electric Conductors by Magnetic Induction---

Longitudinal Flux," American Institute of Electrical Engineers, Transactions of the, 63, (1944),

273-278.

10. J. Vaughan and J. Williamson, "Design of Induction-Heating Coils for Cylindrical

Nonmagnetic Loads," American Institute of Electrical Engineers, Transactions of the, 64,

(1945), 587-592.

11. H. Storm, "Surface Heating by Induction," American Institute of Electrical Engineers,

Transactions of the, 63, (1944), 749-755.

12. N. Stansel, "Induction Heating---Selection of Frequency," American Institute of Electrical

Engineers, Transactions of the, 63, (1944), 755-759.

13. C. Tudbury, Basics of Induction Heating Vol. 1, (New York: John F. Rider, 1960).

14. P. Simpson, Induction heating: coil and system design. (New York, Toronto, London:

McGraw-Hill, 1960).

15. E. J. Davies, Conduction and induction heating. (London: Peter Peregrinus on behalf of the

Institution of Electrical Engineers, 1990).

16. L. Kelvin, Mathematical Papers, Vol. 3,( London: Cambridge University Press, 1890), 484-

515.

17. O. Heaviside, Electrical Papers, Vol. 2, (London: Macmillan & Co., 1892), 396-424.

18. G. Howe, "The high-frequency resistance of wires and coils," Electrical Engineers, Journal

of the Institution of, 58, (1920), 152-162.

19. Copper Wire Tables Circular No. 31: US Bureau of Standards, 1913).

20. V. Callcut, "Coppers for electrical purposes," IEE Proceedings A Physical Science,

Measurement and Instrumentation, Management and Education, Reviews, 133, (1986), 174-201.

21. H. Coppers, "Copper Development Association," Orchard House, Mutton Lane, Potters Bar,

Herts EN6 3AP, (1990).

22. C. Hickman, "Alternating-Current Resistance and Inductance of Single Layer Coils,"

Scientific Papers of the Bureau of Standards, No. 472, (1923), 73-105.

23. S. Butterworth, "Eddy-current losses in cylindrical conductors, with special applications to

the alternating current resistances of short coils," Philosophical Transactions of the Royal

Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical or Physical Character, 222,

(1922), 57-100.

24. S. Butterworth, "Note on the Alternating Current Resistance of Single Layer Coils,"

Physical Review, 23, (1924), 752-755.

25. S. Butterworth, "On the alternating current resistance of solenoidal coils," Proceedings of

the Royal Society of London. Series A, 107, (1925), 693.

26. A. Arnold, "The resistance of round-wire single-layer inductance coils," Proceedings of the

IEE-Part IV: Institution Monographs, 98, (1951), 94-100.

27. A. Reatti and M. Kazimierczuk, "Comparison of various methods for calculating the AC

resistance ofinductors," IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, 38, (2002), 1512-1518.

28. E. Fraga, et al., "Practical model and calculation of AC resistance of long solenoids," IEEE

Transactions on Magnetics, 34, (1998), 205-212.

29. R. Medhurst, "High Frequency Resistance and Self-Capacitance of Single-Layer Solenoids,"

ed. Wireless Engineer: February, (1947), 35-43.

30. O. Todnem, "Induksjonsoppvarming, Industriell Elektrovarme," ed: NTNU, 1992, 1-60.

31. H. Nagaoka, "The inductance coefficients of solenoids," Journal of the College of Science,

27, (1909), 18-33.

32. E. B. Rosa and F. Grover, "Formulas and Tables for the Calculation of Mutual and Self

Induction," Scientific Papers of the Bureau of Standards, No. 169., (1916), 5-231.

33. H. Wheeler, "Simple inductance formulas for radio coils," Proceedings of the IRE, 16,

(1928), 1398-1400.

34. D. Knight. (2010, August 25). 3.1. Solenoids: Part 1.,

http://www.g3ynh.info/zdocs/magnetics/part_1.html

35. S. Zinn and S. Semiatin, Elements of induction heating: design, control, and applications:

Asm Intl, 1988), 22.

- Formulas for the Skin EffectUploaded byzerferuz
- 500W Royer induction heater.pdfUploaded byDidid Ikhsan Adhie Seputro
- 3000 Problemas de CircuitosUploaded bybetodias30
- 1basic Electricals Engg. [15ele15]-NotesUploaded bySATPAL SINGH
- sem1_2-_basic-electrical_engineering_unit_1_2_3_4_5_6_7_8.pdfUploaded byAiswarya Rejo
- The Transmission and Reception of Telluric Waves - N6KPH - Collected PostsUploaded byGreg Karsten
- An-1095 International Rectifier Lc FiltersUploaded byElneto Carri
- EMIUploaded byMoni Kakati
- Chapter17 Electromagnetic Induction BnwUploaded byeltytan
- Smith wilburUploaded bydavidkou
- Basic Electrical EngineeringUploaded bychinnujagan
- Rogowski_Coil_02.pdfUploaded byNacho Navajas
- INDUCTOR.pptUploaded byBhavaniPrasad
- chargerUploaded byRed Warrant
- Combined R&Fr V7Uploaded byboopelectra
- chapter5-a.pptUploaded byBala Chandar
- Proportional Actuator from On Off Solenoid Valve.pdfUploaded byUche Urch
- Paper 3Uploaded bywalidghoneim1970
- Power Lines Filters for SPSUploaded byalesys
- AIEEE-2004paper with solutionsUploaded byvijay kumar
- Line Reactors and AC DrivesUploaded byJennifer Matthews
- 2015_12_lyp_Physics_01Uploaded byAryan Mahajan
- Lesson-Faraday Law of Electromagnetic InductionUploaded byNaresh
- T.J. Awe et al- Magnetic Field and Inductance Calculations in Theta-Pinch and Z-Pinch GeometriesUploaded byCola7890
- EC303Uploaded byapi-3853441
- Transformer - University of Technology JamaicaUploaded byRyan Ɓoŋŋęr
- Ee1001 Basic Electrical Engineering 2013 14Uploaded by002Pradeep002
- ESSAY S2 2019.docxUploaded byWong Chai Yen
- conector_aluminioUploaded byfrs2eng7956
- exam1.1Uploaded byElumalai Rathakrishnan

- Computational Models for the Human Body.pdfUploaded byGuilherme Ayres
- Computational Models for the Human Body.pdfUploaded byGuilherme Ayres
- ResumoDeRegrasv1Uploaded byAntaresBetelgeuse
- AFirstCourseInFiniteElements-Ch12-MATLAB.pdfUploaded byGuilherme Ayres
- Experimental Verification of the Results From the Fem-3D Magnetic Field Analysis of Epstein FrameUploaded byGuilherme Ayres
- bessel applicatıonUploaded byNuriye Sancar
- Ficha de Personagem Dd 5e Completc3a1vel PtUploaded byMarcelo Souza
- MATLAB Installation Guide for Economic FUploaded byGuilherme Ayres
- Apostila_de_CosturaUploaded byannelesK7258
- Característica Mec de MCCUploaded byGuilherme Ayres
- 4400_Welcome_to_Promisse_City_-_Greg_Cox_-_Pt-br.pdfUploaded byGuilherme Ayres
- 4400_Welcome_to_Promisse_City_-_Greg_Cox_-_Pt-br.pdfUploaded byGuilherme Ayres
- Atlas Do Potencial Eolico BrasileiroUploaded byjrmsm

- Static Force AnalysisUploaded byMohamed Ashraf Hindy
- 0 FeaturesUploaded by2498591041
- ApplicationUploaded byPamella Atienza Bacay
- Dynamics Lectures 1 & 2Uploaded byBlargher Therg
- hooke's law(new)Uploaded bySamantha Reema
- Extended Drucker Prager Modeling-tunnelUploaded byKamal Gm
- 1-Amorphous Magnetics AlloysUploaded bySemsem Samasem Nayel
- Exercise Chapter6Uploaded byIzzat Rawaida
- Air Muscle DocUploaded byGinil Jose
- Lab Report PresionUploaded bySalvador Madrigal
- SagUploaded byRaja Shekar
- harmonics modelUploaded bylvndr_sngh
- Design and Analysis of Heat ExchangerUploaded bytamilselvan416
- Glass Formation and Light as Means of ModulationUploaded byJan Austin Ordaz
- 035 ALAQS CFD Comparison of Buoyant Unbounded and Partially-closed Turbulent JetsUploaded byMarcos Rodríguez Regueira
- 38. B.ARCH.Uploaded byNaveen Kumar
- 67770625-MITUploaded byliebez
- Electric Potential Energy - Wikipedia, The Free EncyclopediaUploaded bydonodoni0008
- Track 1 1440 Fatigue ModellingUploaded byPrakash Kancharla
- 2Uploaded byserg777dudnikov777
- DuPont-Module-IV-Rynite.pdfUploaded bykfarav
- Analytic Solution for Secondary Flow With Heat Transfer in a Square DuctUploaded bygetsweet
- Modeling of Heat and Mass Transfer.pdfUploaded byAnonymous AW5jFq9S
- Hall.pdfUploaded byPrateek Chauhan
- Note 32Uploaded byJay Patel
- On Feedback Linearization of Mobile RobotsUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- Smith Charts&antenna.pdfUploaded byMilan Makwana
- RP_166Uploaded bymacarronm62016
- Test #2 Assignment Questions_0000Uploaded by余超鸿
- 2005 Vink PhdUploaded byCésar Tapia